More than 200 pastors and rabbis released an open letter Sunday calling for legislators to approve legislation allowing gay marriage. They say it’s a matter of equality, conscience and justice. The group plans to send the letter to lawmakers.

A coalition of gay marriage advocates plans to release a letter this week signed by top Illinois executives and companies endorsing same-sex marriage as an economic imperative, giving a powerful push to a bill that state lawmakers could take up as early as Thursday.

Among the signatories are Google, which announced this year it was moving its Motorola Mobility unit downtown; Morningstar founder Joe Mansueto; The PrivateBank and Trust Co. Chairman Norman Bobins; and online daily deal pioneer Groupon. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and his top corporate adviser, Michael Sacks, are among those soliciting signatures. […]

ASGK declined to release a copy of the letter, but a draft obtained by the Tribune argues that gay marriage is the “pro-jobs, pro-growth thing to do.”

“Since human capital drives innovation and growth, a state must foster an environment where people want to live,” the letter reads. “To be competitive, a state must create an equitable, fair and respectful environment for all its citizens.” It also notes that it would increase sales and hotel tax receipts and revenue for the wedding industry.

“While the president does not weigh in on every measure being considered by state legislatures, he believes in treating everyone fairly and equally, with dignity and respect,” White House spokesman Shin Inouye told the Chicago Sun-Times on Saturday.

“As he has said, his personal view is that it’s wrong to prevent couples who are in loving, committed relationships, and want to marry, from doing so. Were the President still in the Illinois State Legislature, he would support this measure that would treat all Illinois couples equally,” Inouye said.

Marriage comes to us from nature. The human species comes in two complementary sexes, male and female. Their sexual union is called marital. It not only creates a place of love for two adults but also a home for loving and raising their children. It provides the biological basis for personal identity.

It is physically impossible for two men or two women to consummate a marriage, even when they share a deep friendship or love. Does this mean nature is cruel or that God is unfair? No, but it does mean that marriage is what nature tells us it is and that the State cannot change natural marriage. Civil laws that establish “same-sex marriage” create a legal fiction. The State has no power to create something that nature itself tells us is impossible.

Cardinal: since I can no longer look forward to the 50 shekels each I would otherwise receive for my daughters when they marry, I think we can safely say that marriage has been redefined by society through the ages.

I know it’s scary, but the world doesn’t stop spinning, and these kinds of things happen every generation or so. Try to maintain some dignity and find your place in the new world, it’s not nearly so scary once you stop trying to make people stop liking things you don’t like.

- The State has no power to create something that nature itself tells us is impossible. -

I had no idea the Catholic Church was so concerned about things nature tells us are impossible.

I seem to remember some stories about a big whale’s hospitable belly, burning/talking shrubbery, infinite division of bread and fishes, and even a really important one about someone coming back to life after being killed.

I just don’t get why the Cardinal insists on enshrining his view of marriage into law as affects my partner and me, but doesn’t campaign to ban marriage between infertile or senior couples or to outlaw sex outside marriage.

Am not religious myself, but as long as religion leaves me alone, I have no problem with it. That said, I have major problems with celibate (!?) unmarried men making any kind of grand pronouncements about abortion, birth control, or marriage….

I have no religious afiliations and disagree with the Pope and his representatives on most issues. Having said that, however, I am afraid that I can’t quite accept the concept of “marriage” between two persons of the same sex. Legally sanctioned partnerships, yes. Marriage, no. In my opinion this is something being fervently sought by the so-called “gay” community entirely because they want to do everything possible to make criticism of their lifestyle socially unacceptable, and not because it grants any advantage beyond what they already enjoy through the legality of civil unions. So I vote with the cardinal.

How surprising that the Cardinal has come out against marriage for those beyond child-bearing age. Unlike younger heterosexual couples, their relationships are incapable of bringing children forth. An absolutely stunning change of position by the Catholic Church. Or does the child-bearing test only apply to people the church doesn’t like for other reasons?

John Bambenek: Fornication is only illegal under that statute if it is “open and notorious”. If the Cardinal cared at all about consistency, he could campaign to make sex outside marriage illegal when it occurs behind closed doors. :)

Perhaps a shame that we don’t take the approach of many countries where a religious marriage and a civil marriage are two separate things. The churches can marry (or not) whomever they please and couples can have a religeous marriage, a civil marriage, or both. Then again, maybe that wouldn’t change a thing about the cardinal’s objections.

I think we should forgive the cardinal - he is required by the requirments of his office to read the prepared script.

This is a fait acompli given the current state of affairs. Saying things like what Mr Bambenek said only opens opponents to ridicule. I like what girlawyer said altho I think we are a bit farther down the road for that to happen. I am ambivalent on the subject myself {insert joke about how misery should be shared}.

I’ve said it before - in a society where many “hetero” folks routinely eschew marriage in favor of co-habiting, it’s not surprising they don’t object to same sex marriages.

I’ve heard this a lot lately from some of my Catholic acquaintances. This must be the latest argument from the Vatican. It’s not a religious argument put forth by the Church; it’s the violation of the natural order of things that reaches beyond religious law. Good PR move, but it doesn’t work. Homosexual behavior has been a part of nature since before recorded time. Marriage is a man-made institution. You can’t have it both or either way, really.

The cardinal is in no position to tell us what is marriage when neither he nor the clergy in his faith are married. On the other hand, I’m very happy that clergy of other faiths support equality and believe through this example that religion is about justice and love.

Natural law is not a new Catholic argument or way of thinking. Societies that never heard of the Judeo-Christian God established heterosexual marriage customs for alliances, reproduction and sexual regulation (yeah, that sounds awkward, but true). Natural law is written on the human heart. The 10 commandments are natural law spelled out, as God’s Chosen people had a bit of a difficult time following natural law what with temptations and all that. Our American founders appealed to natural law as the basis for saying our rights come from God, not from government.

God bless Cardinal George. I see a lot of women, lots of Jewish rabbis, many Episcopals, a nun who ought to be disciplined, Unitarians, UCC, and some yahoo-named “churches”. In spite of the #s, just a few religious traditions are represented. I see no Muslim Imams on this list. How about Orthodox Jews? Orthodox Christians? Mormons?

It seems to me that the Church spent this last election cycle not as the ‘bride of Christ” but as a hand maiden of the RNC. Its actions may have freed Democratic Reps and Sens as vote as they please as nothing will please the Church so why try.